On July 1 this year the court dismissed a complaint from a Russian citizen resident in Estonia who was seeking to extend the validity of their firearms permit.

The plaintiff argued that the Police and Border Guard Board's (PPA) decision to revoke their permit ran counter to the rule of law, violating the principles of non-retroactivity, legitimate expectation, and protection of trust in particular.

The plaintiff also claimed it breached the requirement for equal treatment of citizens [sic] and the prohibition against discrimination based on nationality, origin, and other factors. Furthermore, the plaintiff argued the state had not considered less restrictive measures as a way to ensure national security and safety.

The court examined the constitutionality of the regulation and concluded that paragraph 30, subsection 2 of the Weapons Act, along with related implementation norms, were constitutional, and dismissed the complaint, the court's press representative said.

The court agreed with the explanations provided in the relevant law's explanatory memorandum and by administrative authorities, stating that restricting the acquisition and possession of firearms in this case has the legitimate aim of ensuring national security and public order.

Part of maintaining public order and security involves preventive measures to foresee and avoid threats. It is widely known that Estonia's neighboring country commenced military aggression against Ukraine more than two years ago, significantly altering the security environment as a result, and so necessitating additional preventive measures.

Restricting the acquisition and possession of firearms is a suitable and necessary measure, the court found. No citizen of a foreign state can be expected to hold the same loyalty to Estonia as they do to their home state, the court added.

Citizenship is not merely a travel document, but entails obligations and loyalty to the country of issuance, obligations which include holding various attitudes, and also of conscription duties, the court continued.

These obligations to a home state exist regardless of whether individuals agree with the current regime in place.

Russian citizens residing in Estonia are nevertheless obligated under the Russian Federation's constitution to defend Russia, and to bear in mind potential mobilization.

The court found that restricting the acquisition and possession of firearms is necessary. The Ministry of the Interior has considered less restrictive measures, such as suspending permits and confiscating firearms. While these measures may seem less burdensome from an individual's perspective, they are not equivalent from the state's viewpoint, including administrative burden. Moreover, Estonia has implemented various measures to enhance security and ensure proper behavior by the aggressor state, such as sanctions on asset use and entry bans for Russian Federation citizens.

With regard to equal treatment, the court noted that citizenship involves loyalty to the country of citizenship. The plaintiff differs from Estonian citizens, who are required to be loyal to Estonia's constitutional order and defend Estonia's independence and bear the right to resist any unconstitutional, forceful changes.

The plaintiff has similar loyalty obligations to the Russian Federation, including following orders under Russian law and defending Russian territory, the court found.

The legislature has however made an exception for EU citizens and those of NATO member states, under the terms of the Weapons Act, since it is held to be unlikely that a similar loyalty conflict could arise for citizens of EU and/or NATO member states residing in Estonia.

However, such a conflict of interests is not unavoidable when it comes to citizens of other countries, the court found, making this a reasonable and appropriate justification for different treatment regarding the acquisition and possession of firearms by foreign nationals living in Estonia.

The complainant has not been treated unequally based on ethnic, national, or social origin, language, minority status, or birth. The different treatment is based on citizenship, which cannot be equated with nationality, and the resulting loyalty relationship to another country whose values and objectives may significantly differ from Estonia's, thus posing a security risk to Estonia.

The court noted that although the complainant has lived in Estonia for a long time, he has not deemed it necessary to change his citizenship to express loyalty to Estonia.

The court further noted that the principle of legal certainty, including the prohibition of retroactive effect, legitimate expectation, and protection of trust, does not require legal orders to be immutable, meaning that rights once granted cannot be changed, restricted, or revoked under any circumstances.

Changes or restrictions must be weighed against the significance of the right granted to the individual and the changes they have made to their life arrangements, and the value justifying the change. Due to the military aggression by the Russian Federation against Ukraine, it has been necessary to protect Estonia's security and public order in the changed security situation.

--

Follow ERR News on Facebook and Twitter and never miss an update!